The execution was carried out after the U.S. Supreme Court rejected claims by Brewer's attorneys that prosecutors at a 2009 resentencing trial had relied on false and discredited expert testimony.

A Texas man who said his death sentence was based on false and unscientific expert testimony was executed Thursday evening for killing a man during a robbery decades ago.

Brent Ray Brewer, 53, received a lethal injection at the state penitentiary in Huntsville for the April 1990 death of Robert Laminack. The inmate was pronounced dead at 6:39 p.m. local time, 15 minutes after the chemicals began flowing.

Prosecutors had said Laminack, 66, gave Brewer and his girlfriend a ride to a Salvation Army location in Amarillo when he was stabbed in the neck and robbed of $140.

Brewer’s execution came hours after the U.S. Supreme Court declined to step in over the inmate’s claims that prosecutors had relied on false and discredited expert testimony at his 2009 resentencing trial.

  • atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
    218·
    1 year ago

    Congratulations. You’ve managed to read the first sentence without reading anything else. Let me TL;DR it for you.

    Thanks - being brigaded by libs means I'm kinda skimming responses at this point.

    I'm saying maybe use the interpretation of their argument that they use and not the one you wish to shoe-horn onto it. Whenever I've listened to pro-lifers (at least the better versed ones) they clearly only intend to stop what they view as "actively killing an unborn child." Their logic, taken from that POV (and assuming a BUNCH of their premises are true) seems to be reasonably consistent and would have no bearing on the death of a convicted murderer.

    • logicbomb@lemmy.world
      41·
      1 year ago

      they clearly only intend to stop what they view as “actively killing an unborn child.”

      It doesn't matter where they intend to stop.

      If I say, "one apple plus one apple is two apples," and my stated justification is "1+1=2". And then later, I say, "one orange plus one orange is three oranges," you would be right to say, "Your justification 1+1=2 also works for oranges, so somewhere in your arguments you're incorrect." But here, you're saying that I can respond, "I only intend to stop at apples," and that this is "reasonably consistent."

      This is some sort of cognitive dissonance sophistry that simply doesn't work. It's not reasonably consistent.

      • atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
        37·
        1 year ago

        It doesn’t matter where they intend to stop.

        It's their argument - so yes it does?

        Do you believe people should be free? Well how about criminals? Does it matter now "where you intend to stop"?